Pounding and Deck Unseating Damage in Curved Highway Viaducts Carlos MENDEZ G. Graduate Student Hokkaido University Sapporo, Japan

Space for portrait 32 x 48 mm

carlosmendez@mail.com

Carlos Mendez Galindo, born 1981, received his civil eng. degree from the Michoacana Univ., Mexico. Now he is pursuing his Ph.D. degree at Hokkaido University, Japan.

a

Toshiro HAYASHIKAWA Professor Space for Hokkaido University portrait Sapporo, Japan 32 x 48 mm

a

toshiroh@eng.hokudai.ac.jp

Toshiro Hayashikawa, born 1950, received his D.Eng. degree from Hokkaido Univ. in 1983. He is now serving as Head of Civil Eng. Dept., Graduate School of Eng., Hokkaido University, Japan.

Summary This paper investigates the possibility of pounding, deck unseating and tangential joint residual damage depending on the curvature radius. Furthermore, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of cable restrainers on the overall 3D seismic response of curved highway viaducts is presented. For this purpose, the bridge seismic performance has been evaluated on four different radii of curvature, 100m, 200m, 400m, and 800m, considering two cases: restrained and unrestrained curved viaducts. Depending on the radius of curvature, three-dimensional non-linear dynamic analysis shows the vulnerability of curved viaducts to pounding and deck unseating damage. In this study, the efficiency of using cable restrainers on curved viaducts is demonstrated, not only by reducing in all cases the possible damage, but also by providing a similar behavior in the viaducts despite of curvature radius. Keywords: Nonlinear dynamic response, seismic damage, unseating prevention, curved viaducts.

1. Analytical Model of Viaduct The highway viaduct considered in this study is composed by a three-span continuous seismically isolated bridge section connected to a single simply supported non-isolated span. The bridge alignment is horizontally curved in a circular arc. Four different radii of curvature are taken into consideration measured from the origin of the circular arc to the centerline of the bridge deck. The total viaduct length of 160 m is divided in equal spans of 40m. The bridge superstructure consists of a concrete deck slab that rests on three I-shape steel girders, equally spaced at an interval of 2.1 m. The three girders (G1, G2 and G3) are interconnected by end-span diaphragms as well as intermediate diaphragms at uniform spacing of 5.0 m. Full composite action between the slab and the girders is assumed for the deck superstructure model, which is treated as the three-dimensional grillage beam system presented in Fig. 1. The deck weight is supported on five hollow box section steel piers of 20m of height. The non-isolated simply supported bridge section (S1) is supported by steel fixed (Fig.2 (a)) and steel roller (Fig. 2 (b)) bearings. Coulomb friction force is taken into account for the roller bearings, which allow movement tangent to the curved deck superstructure. The isolated continuous section (S2) is supported on top of four pier units (P2, P3, P4 and P5) by LRB bearings, which are represented by the bilinear force-displacement hysteresis loop given in Fig.2 (c). F

S2 R

S1 G3 F

F

G2

R

L R

M

L

K1 L

d

B3

F1

F

K1

d

K1

K2

F1

K2

G1

F

Z X P1

M

B2

B1 Y

M

F

P2

FF : fixed bearing M : movable (roller) bearing LL : LRB bearing

(a) Fixed

F

(b) Movable

M

(c) LRB

L

RR : restrainer

Fig. 1 Detail of viaduct finite element model

Fig. 2 Analytical models of bearing supports

d

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

unseating limit

-0.4

-0.5

residual joint tangential displacement (m)

maximum roller bearing displacement (m)

Unrestrained Restrained

0.0

Unrestrained Restrained

0.25 0.20

separation limit

0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05

TAK 0

TAK 100

200

300

400

500

600

700

curvature radius (m)

800

-0.10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

curvature radius (m)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3 Effect of curvature radius on: (a) deck unseating, and (b) tangential joint residual damage The analysis on the highway viaduct model is conducted using an analytical method based on the elasto-plastic finite displacement dynamic response 8 analysis. The tangent stiffness matrix, considering both geometric and material nonlinearities, is adopted in this 6 study, being the cross sectional properties of the 4 nonlinear elements prescribed by using fiber elements. The stress-strain relationship of the beam-column 2 element is modeled as a bilinear type. The implicit time TAK integration Newmark scheme is formulated and used to directly calculate the responses, while the Newton0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 curvature radius (m) Raphson iteration method is used to achieve the Fig. 4 Effect of curvature radius on acceptable accuracy in the response calculations. To assess the seismic performance of the viaduct, the pounding damage nonlinear bridge model is subjected to a strong ground motion records from Takatori (TAK) and Kobe (KOB) stations during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, as well as from Rinaldi (RIN) Station from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Unrestrained Restrained

maximum impact force (MN)

10

2. Analytical Results In all cases, the results indicate that TAK record, shown in Fig. 3, represents the worst scenario for the viaducts. Firstly, the effect of curvature radius on deck unseating damage is analyzed. The calculated results clearly demonstrate that curved viaducts are more vulnerable to deck unseating damage. However, this possibility can be reduced by increasing the curvature radius or by the use of restrainers. Moreover, the use of unseating prevention systems based on cable restrainers provide to the bridge a similar behavior in case of curved and straight bridges, as can be observed in Fig. 3 (a). Furthermore, the results show that curved viaducts are vulnerable to tangential joint residual damage. This damage increases by reducing the curvature radius. In case of restrained viaducts, a significant reduction of the residual joint tangential displacement is appreciated and similar values are obtained, as illustrated in Fig. 3 (b). On the other hand, another important aspect analyzed in this study is the possibility of pounding damage. The important added flexibility provided by LRB bearings results in a detrimental increase of collisions between adjacent decks. In this aspect, results show that in curved bridges, pounding damage is presented. However, a significant reduction in the impact forces at the expansion joint is observed in straight-tending bridges, as is shown in Fig.4.

3. Conclusions This study introduces the effect of radius of curvature combined with the use of restrainers on the overall 3D seismic response of highway viaducts. Three-dimensional non-linear dynamic analysis shows the vulnerability of curved viaducts to pounding and deck unseating damage. On the other hand, the effectiveness on the use of cable restrainers on curved viaducts is demonstrated, not only by reducing in all cases the possible damage but also by providing a similar behavior in the viaducts despite of curvature radius.

Pounding and Deck Unseating Damage in Curved Highway Viaducts Carlos MENDEZ G. Graduate Student Hokkaido University Sapporo, Japan carlosmendez@mail.com

Carlos Mendez Galindo, born 1981, received his civil eng. degree from the Michoacana Univ., Mexico. Now he is pursuing his Ph.D. degree at Hokkaido University, Japan.

Space for a portrait 32 x 48 mm

Toshiro HAYASHIKAWA Professor Space for a Hokkaido University portrait Sapporo, Japan 32 x 48 mm toshiroh@eng.hokudai.ac.jp Toshiro Hayashikawa, born 1950, received his D.Eng. degree from Hokkaido Univ. in 1983. He is now serving as Head of Civil Eng. Dept., Graduate School of Eng., Hokkaido University, Japan.

Summary This paper investigates the possibility of pounding, deck unseating and tangential joint residual damage depending on the curvature radius. Furthermore, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of cable restrainers on the overall 3D seismic response of curved highway viaducts is presented. For this purpose, the bridge seismic performance has been evaluated on four different radii of curvature, 100m, 200m, 400m, and 800m, considering two cases: restrained and unrestrained curved viaducts. Depending on the radius of curvature, three-dimensional non-linear dynamic analysis shows the vulnerability of curved viaducts to pounding and deck unseating damage. In this study, the efficiency of using cable restrainers on curved viaducts is demonstrated, not only by reducing in all cases the possible damage, but also by providing a similar behavior in the viaducts despite of curvature radius. Keywords: Nonlinear dynamic response, seismic damage, unseating prevention, curved viaducts.

1. Introduction During the last decades horizontally curved viaducts have become an important component in modern highway systems as a viable option at complicated interchanges or river crossings where geometric restrictions and constraints of limited site space make extremely complicated the adoption of standard straight superstructures. However, bridges with curved configurations may sustain severe damage owing to rotation of the superstructure or displacement toward the outside of the curve line due to complex vibrations occurring during an earthquake. As a result of the implementation of modern seismic protection technologies, bridges can be seismically upgraded through the installation of cable restrainers that provide connection between adjacent spans. The purpose is to prevent the unseating of decks from top of the piers at expansion joints by limiting the relative movements of adjacent bridge superstructures. Moreover, cable restrainers provide a failsafe function by supporting a fallen girder unseated in the event of a severe earthquake [1]. In addition, another commonly adopted earthquake protection strategy consists of replacing the vulnerable steel bearings with isolation devices [2]. Even though the application of the mentioned earthquake protection techniques, the considerable complexity associated with the analysis of curved viaducts requires a realistic prediction of the structural response, especially under the extreme ground motions generated by earthquakes, as well as a better understanding of effects due to different variables, such as the radius of curvature. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to analyze the overall performance of highway viaducts with different radii of curvature. The effect of curvature on deck unseating damage and pounding damage is analyzed. In addition, a comparison between restrained and unrestrained highway bridges is presented. The study combines the use of non-linear dynamic analysis with a three-dimensional bridge model to accurately evaluate the seismic demands on four radii of curvature in the event of severe earthquakes.

2. Analytical Model of Viaduct 2.1 Deck Superstructure and Piers The great complexness related to the seismic analysis of highway viaducts enhances a realistic prediction of the bridge structural responses. This fact provides a valuable environment for the nonlinear behavior due to material and geometrical non-linearities of the relatively large deflection of the structure on the stresses and forces. Therefore, the seismic analysis of the viaduct employs nonlinear computer model that simulates the highly non-linear response due to impacts at the expansion joints. Non-linearities are also considered for characterization of the non-linear structural elements of piers, bearings and cable restrainers. The highway viaduct considered in the analysis is composed by a three-span continuous seismically isolated section connected to a single simply supported non-isolated span. The overall viaduct length of 160 m is divided in equal spans of 40 m, as represented in Fig. 1. The bridge alignment is horizontally curved in a circular arc. Four different radii of curvature are taken into consideration measured from the origin of the circular arc to the centerline of the bridge deck. Tangential configuration for both piers and bearing supports is adopted, respect to the global coordinate system for the bridge, shown in the figure, in which the X- and Y-axes lie in the horizontal plane while the Z-axis is vertical. The bridge superstructure consists of a concrete deck slab that rests on three I-shape steel girders, equally spaced at an interval of 2.1 m. The girders are interconnected by end-span diaphragms as well as intermediate diaphragms at uniform spacing of 5.0 m. Full composite action between the slab and the girders is assumed for the superstructure model, which is treated as a threedimensional grillage beam system shown in Fig. 2. The deck weight is supported on five hollow box section steel piers of 20m height designed according to the seismic code in Japan [1]. Cross sectional properties of deck and bridge piers are summarized in Table 1. Characterization of structural pier elements is based on the fiber element modelization where the inelasticity of the flexure element is accounted by the division of the crosssection into a discrete number of longitudinal and transversal fiber regions with constitutive model based on uniaxial stress-strain relationship for each zone. The element stress resultants are determined by integration of the fiber zone stresses over the cross section of the element. At the pier locations the bridge deck is modeled in the transverse direction as a rigid bar of length equal to the deck width. This transverse rigid bar is used to model the interactions between deck and pier motions [3]. Table 1 Cross sectional properties of deck and piers

(a) Elevation view 40 m

40 m P3

P2

P4

B4

40 m B2

B3

40 m

B5

Y X

P1

B6

B1

P5

(b) Plan view

Fig. 1 Model of curved highway viaduct

(1)

A (m2)

Ix (m4)

Iy (m4) (1)

P1

0.4500

0.3798

0.3798

P2

0.4700

0.4329

0.4329

P3

0.4700

0.4329

0.4329

P4

0.4700

0.4329

0.4329

P5

0.4500

0.3798

0.3798

G1

0.2100

0.1005

0.0994

G2

0.4200

0.1609

0.2182

G3

0.2100

0.1005

0.0994

Iz in case of G1, G2 and G3

S2 R M

S1 G3 F

F

G2

M

R

R

M

B2

L

L

B3

G1

F

FF : fixed bearing

P2

B1 Y

L

M : movable (roller) bearing

Z

LL : LRB bearing

X

RR : restrainer

P1

Fig. 2 Detail of curved viaduct finite element model F

F K1 d

(a) Fixed

F

F1

K1

d

M

K2

F1

K2 K1

(b) Movable

Table 2 Structural properties of LRB supports

F

(c) LRB

L

Pier d

P2 P3 P4 P5

K1

K2

F1

36.75 49.00 49.00 36.75

3.68 4.90 4.90 3.68

0.368 0.490 0.490 0.368

Fig. 3 Analytical models of bearing supports 2.2 Bearings Supports Steel fixed bearing supports (Fig. 3-a) are installed across the full width on the left end of the simply-supported span (S1), resting on the Pier 1 (P1). Steel roller bearings at the right end on the Pier 2 (P2) allow for movement in the longitudinal (tangent to the curved superstructure) direction while restrained in the transverse radial direction. Coulomb friction force is taken into account in numerical analysis for roller bearings, which are modeled by using the bilinear rectangle displacement-load relationship, shown in Fig. 3-b. The isolated continuous section (S2) is supported on four pier units (P2, P3, P4 and P5) by LRB bearings. The left end is resting on the same P2 that supports S1, and at the right end on top of P5. Orientation of LRB bearings is such as to allow for longitudinal and transverse movements. LRB bearing supports are represented by the bilinear forcedisplacement hysteresis loop presented in Fig.3-c. The principal parameters that characterize the analytical model are the pre-yield stiffness K1, corresponding to combined stiffness of the rubber bearing and the lead core, the stiffness of the rubber K2 and the yield force of the lead core F1. The structural properties of LRB supports are shown in Table 2. The devices are designed for optimum yield force level to superstructure weight ratio (F1/W = 0.1) and pre-yield to post-yield stiffness ratio (K1/K2=10.0), which provide maximum seismic energy dissipation capacity as well as limited maximum deck displacements [4]. The objective is to attract the appropriate proportion of nonseismic and seismic loads according to the resistance capacity of each substructure ensuring a near equal distribution of ductility demands over all piers. Furthermore, displacements of LRB bearings have been partially limited for all the viaducts, through the installation of lateral side stoppers. 2.3 Expansion Joint The isolated and non-isolated sections of the viaduct are separated, introducing a gap equal to the width of the expansion joint opening between adjacent spans in order to allow for contraction and expansion of the road deck from creep, shrinkage, temperature fluctuations and traffic without generating constraint forces in the structure. In the event of strong earthquakes, the expansion joint gap of 0.1m could close resulting in collision between deck superstructures. The pounding phenomenon, defined as taking place at the three girder ends, is modeled using impact spring elements for which the compression-only bilinear gap element is provided with a spring of stiffness Ki = 980.0 MN/m that acts when the gap between the girders is completely closed.

Table 3 Structural properties of cable restrainers

F F2 F1 closing

K2 K1

d

slack

Ki

Fig. 4 Analytical models of of the cable restrainer

E A L K1 K2 F1 F2

Units (Gpa) *10-3 (m2) (m) (MN/m) (MN/m) (MN) (MN)

Value 200 1.765 1.730 204.058 10.203 2.584 3.040

On the other hand, in the analysis of the restrained models, in order to prevent excessive opening of the expansion joint gap, it is provided additional fail-safe protection against extreme seismic loads; for this purpose, unseating cable restrainers units are anchored to the three girder ends (1 unit per girder) connecting both adjacent superstructures across the expansion joint. The structural properties of cable restrainer are presented in Table 3. The seismic restrainers, illustrated in Fig. 4, have been modeled as tension-only spring elements provided with a slack of 0.025 m, a value fitted to accommodate the expected deck thermal movements limiting the activation of the system specifically for earthquake loading. Initially, restrainers behave elastically with stiffness K1, while their plasticity is introduced by the yield force (F1) and the post-yielding stiffness (K2=0.05*K1). Finally, the failure statement is taken into account for ultimate strength F2, and since then, adjacent spans can separate freely without any action of the unseating prevention device. In order to simplify, the effects of the expansion joint in the transverse direction as well as the shear forces acting on cable restrainers are neglected.

3. Method of Analysis The bridge model is developed in-house using the Fortran programming language. The analysis on the highway bridge model is conducted using an analytical method based on the elasto-plastic finite displacement dynamic response analysis. The governing nonlinear equation of motion can be derived by the principle of energy that the external work is absorbed by the work of internal, inertial and damping forces for any small admissible motion that satisfies compatibility and essential boundary conditions [5]. Hence, the incremental finite element dynamic equilibrium equation at time t+Δt over all the elements, can be expressed in the following matrix form:

[M]{u&&}t+Δt + [C]{u&}t+Δt + [K]t+Δt {Δu}t+Δt = −[M]{&z&}t+Δt

(1)

where [M], [C] and [K]t+Δt represent respectively the mass, damping and tangent stiffness matrices of the bridge structure at time t+Δt. While u&& , u& , Δu and &z& denote the structural accelerations, velocities, incremental displacements and earthquake accelerations at time t+Δt, respectively. The incremental equation of motion accounts for both geometrical and material nonlinearities. Material nonlinearity is introduced through the bilinear elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship of the beam-column element, incorporating a uniaxial yield criterion and kinematic strain-hardening rule. The yield stress is 235.4 MPa, the elastic modulus is 200 GPa and the strain hardening in plastic area is 0.01. The damping mechanism is introduced in the analysis through the Rayleigh damping matrix, expressed as a linear combination of the mass matrix and the stiffness matrix. To assess the seismic performance of the viaduct, the nonlinear bridge model is subjected to the longitudinal (L), transverse (T), and vertical (V) components of a strong ground motion records from Takatori (TAK), and Kobe (KOB) Stations during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, as well as Rinaldi (RIN) Station from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The longitudinal earthquake component shakes the highway viaduct parallel to the X-axis of the global coordinate system, while the transverse and vertical components are acting in the Y- and Z-axes, respectively.

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3 unseating limit

-0.4

-0.5

maximum roller bearing displacement (m)

maximum roller bearing displacement (m)

Unrestrained Restrained

0.0

Unrestrained Restrained

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3 unseating limit

-0.4

-0.5

TAK 0

100

KOB 200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0

100

maximum roller bearing displacement (m)

curvature radius (m)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

curvature radius (m) Unrestrained Restrained

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3 unseating limit

-0.4

-0.5

RIN 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

curvature radius (m)

Fig. 5 Effect of curvature radius on deck unseating damage

4. Analytical Results The overall three-dimensional seismic response of the viaduct is investigated in detail through nonlinear dynamic response analysis. Particular emphasis has been focused on the expansion joint behavior due to the extreme complexity associated with connection between isolated and nonisolated sections in curved viaducts. The bridge seismic performance has been evaluated on four different radii of curvature, 100m, 200m, 400m, and 800m, considering two cases: restrained and unrestrained curved viaducts. 4.1 Bearing Supports Firstly, the effect of curvature radius on deck unseating damage is analyzed. The maximum roller bearing displacement in the negative tangential direction has been established as the damage index to evaluate the potential possibility of deck unseating. For this study, a limit of 0.40 m has been fixed to determine the high unseating probability for existing bridges with narrow steel pier caps that provide short seat widths. First, the unrestrained viaduct is analyzed in terms of the maximum displacement in the steel roller bearing. The results indicate that, for TAK and RIN earthquakes, even though none of them reach the unseating limit, a clear increment in the maximum roller bearing displacement is observed in bridges with curvature radius of 100m and 200m. However, a uniform displacement is observed in the two remaining bridges, 400m and 800m. As for KOB record, the behavior is similar in all cases. It is observed that TAK record is the strongest amount the three earthquake ground motions, presenting elevated displacements at the roller bearing, as is shown in Fig. 5. It can be observed that in more curved viaducts; the possibility of unseating damage is higher, especially in the bridge with the curvature radius of 100 m. In restrained viaducts, similar values of maximum displacements on the roller bearing are observed. In the three ground motions, the maximum displacements reached by the viaducts are around the same values. KOB and RIN present a maximum values at close range of 0.10m, and TAK, being the worst condition, overpasses 0.15m in all curvatures.

Unrestrained Restrained

0.25 0.20

separation limit

0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05

residual joint tangential displacement (m)

residual joint tangential displacement (m)

4.2 Expansion Joint Permanent tangential offsets of expansion joints observed at the end of recent earthquakes have substantially interfered in the post-earthquake serviceability of highway viaducts. In several cases, traffic was impeded and the disruption of the bridge usability in the aftermath of the earthquakes resulted in a critical problem for rescue activities. The residual joint tangential displacement has been calculated in order to perform the post-earthquake serviceability evaluation on the viaduct. The possibility for vehicles to pass over the tangential gap length, measured as the contact length of a truck tire (0.15m), is suggested as the limit for this damage. For unrestrained viaducts, as is illustrated in Fig. 6, the results of the residual joint tangential displacement show an important damage in the bridge with 100m and 200m curvature radii when subjected to TAK and RIN ground motions. However, it is observed a severe damage caused by the TAK record, where the 100m and 200m viaducts overpass the residual displacement limit. In the two remaining records, residual displacements are far from this limit. RIN also presents a reduction in the displacements depending on the curvature. However, in KOB the values remain the same despite of the curvature radius. The results obtained from the analysis of the restrained viaducts are also shown in Fig. 6. Firstly, a significant reduction in the tangential offsets of expansion joints is observed, especially in TAK, where the maximum displacements present an important reduction. Even though the displacements presented in KOB and RIN are in the acceptable limits, the application of cable restrainers reduces these displacements, and for KOB, almost no displacements are observed. Another important problem presented in the expansion joint during an earthquake is the pounding damage. While seismic isolation provided by LRB bearings beneficially reduces the transmitted forces into the piers, the important added flexibility results in detrimental increase of collisions between adjacent decks. Therefore, the effect of curvature radius on pounding damage is studied. Ratios of maximum impact force to the deck weight greater than 1.0 have been observed to provide a good estimation of significant transmitted forces to bearing supports [6]. The analytical results for Unrestrained Restrained

0.25 0.20

separation limit

0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05

TAK -0.10

0

100

KOB 200

300

400

500

600

700

800

-0.10

0

100

200

300

residual joint tangential displacement (m)

curvature radius (m) Unrestrained Restrained

0.25 0.20

separation limit

0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05

RIN -0.10

0

100

200

300

400

500

400

500

curvature radius (m)

600

700

800

curvature radius (m)

Fig. 6 Effect of curvature radius on tangential joint residual damage

600

700

800

Unrestrained Restrained

8

6

4

2

Unrestrained Restrained

10

maximum impact force (MN)

maximum impact force (MN)

10

8

6

4

2

TAK 0

100

KOB 200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0

curvature radius (m)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

curvature radius (m) Unrestrained Restrained

10

maximum impact force (MN)

100

8

6

4

2

RIN 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

curvature radius (m)

Fig. 7 Effect of curvature radius on pounding damage the unrestrained viaducts show that in all the records, the maximum impact forces are presented in the viaduct with radius of curvature of 100m, followed closely by the 200m viaducts. The last two viaducts with 400m and 800m of curvature radii remain presenting uniform behaviors in terms of maximum impacts. TAK record, with a maximum impact of 10 MN, is the most critical condition for the viaducts, followed by RIN with 7.64 MN and lastly KOB, presenting in all curvatures impact forces below 4 MN. It can be observed the uniform impact forces in the less curved viaducts, as illustrated in Fig. 7. In case of the viaducts equipped with cable restrainers, the reduction in the possibility of pounding damage is significant. Firstly, the use of restrainers reduces the maximum impact forces in all viaducts, even in the 100m bridges where the maximum impact forces are significantly reduced. These impacts are clearly less that the ones obtained in the unrestrained cases. Such effect applies as well to the other bridges with 200m, 400m and 800m of curvature radii, especially in the impacts presented in RIN record, where a significant variation is presented for the 400m and 800m viaducts, as shows Fig. 7.

5. Conclusions The effects of curvature radius on nonlinear seismic response of curved highway viaducts equipped with unseating prevention cable restrainers have been analyzed. The effect of the curvature radius on the unseating damage, tangential residual damage at the expansion joint and pounding damage has been evaluated. The effectiveness of cable restrainers to mitigate earthquake damage through connection between isolated and non-isolated sections of curved steel viaducts is evaluated. For this purpose, important bridge elements as well as the global structural response have been examined in detail under the action of near-fault earthquake ground motions. The calculated results clearly demonstrate that curved viaducts are more vulnerable to deck unseating damage. However, the possibility of deck unseating is reduced by increasing the curvature radius or by the use of restrainers. Moreover, the use of unseating prevention systems

based on cable restrainers provide to the bridge a similar behavior in case of curved and straight bridges. Curved viaducts are found vulnerable to tangential joint residual damage. The possibility of this kind of damage increases by reducing the curvature radius. In case of restrained viaducts, a significant reduction of the residual joint tangential displacement is appreciated and similar values of residual joint tangential displacement are obtained. In this study, the results show that in case of curved bridges, pounding damage is presented. However, a significant reduction in the impact forces at the expansion joint is observed by increasing the curvature radius. Furthermore, even though the differences on the radii of curvature in the viaducts, the application of cable restrainers reduces the possibility of pounding damage. In this analysis, the effectiveness on the use of cable restrainers on curved viaducts is demonstrated, not only by reducing in all cases the possible damage but also by providing a similar behavior in the viaducts despite of curvature radius.

References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Japan Road Association (JRA), Specifications for Highway Bridges â€“ Part V Seismic Design, Maruzen, Tokyo, 2002. Robinson, W. H., Lead-rubber hysteretic bearings suitable for protecting structures during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Structures, Vol. 10, pp. 593-604, 1982. Maleki, S., Effect of deck and support stiffness on seismic response of slab-girder bridges, Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 219-226, 2002. Ruiz Julian, F. D. and Hayashikawa T., Study on seismic response of curved highway viaducts with different cable restrainers, Journal of Structural Engineering, Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 51A, pp. 701-712, 2005. Ali HM, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Modeling the nonlinear seismic behavior of cable-stayed bridges with passive control bearings. Computer & Structures, Vol. 54, No.3, pp. 461-92, 1995. Zhu P, Abe M, Fujino Y., Evaluation of pounding countermeasures and serviceability of elevated bridges during seismic excitation using 3D modeling. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol.33, No.5, pp.591-609, 2004.

Published on Sep 21, 2009

Pounding and Deck Unseating Damage in Curved Highway Viaducts

Pounding and Deck Unseating Damage in Curved Highway Viaducts

Published on Sep 21, 2009

This paper investigates the possibility of pounding, deck unseating and tangential joint residual damage depending on the curvature radius....

Advertisement